Didn't see that one coming - Justin Harrell?

[Spaulding]

Thoughts? Kiper mentioned if not for the injury he'd have been top ten but I don't follow the SEC that much so don't know his history other than he was injured early in the season.

[Chubbyhubby]

He was injured all of last year. He has been injured throughout his college career. If he stays healthy he could be a good player. We'll see...

[HarveyWallbangers]

Has he been injured throughout, or just last year? I know that as a junior he was all-conference in the SEC and had 7.5 sacks as a DT.

[b bulldog]

last year and he played with one arm and still got the double team

[run pMc]

true..the injury concerns me. I'll assume he was the BPA on TT's board.
I'm a little disappointed...with Lynch gone I was thinking TT would go Reggie Nelson or Meachem/Bowe.

As I think about it, I like this pick. Harrell supposedly is a great motor and leadership guy, plus he can learn from Pickett (and take over for him if -- God forbid -- Pickett gets hurt) and Kampman, and he frees Jenkins to play DE more. I like that TT is trying to build a strong D with players that have a motor (Kampman, Poppinga, Hawk, Barnett, etc.) and love for the game.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Round 2...

[retailguy]

Has he been injured throughout, or just last year? I know that as a junior he was all-conference in the SEC and had 7.5 sacks as a DT.

has been injured throughout his college career. Ankle & biceps predominately.

[BooHoo]

I had him on the top of my board for the pack all year! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

has been injured throughout his college career. Ankle & biceps predominately.

Played 8 of 13 games as a freshman.
Played 13 of 13 games as a sophomore.
Played 11 of 13 games as a junior.

Played 32 of 39 games before this last year. He has injury concerns. Then again, if he didn't, would we have gotten him with pick #16? Has he had any knee problems? That would be the biggest concern.

[hurleyfan]

has been injured throughout his college career. Ankle & biceps predominately.

Definitely has injury concerns. Then again, if he didn't, would we have gotten him with pick #16?

Probably not....

[retailguy]

has been injured throughout his college career. Ankle & biceps predominately.

Played 8 of 13 games as a freshman.
Played 13 of 13 games as a sophomore.
Played 11 of 13 games as a junior.

Played 32 of 39 games before this last year. He has injury concerns. Then again, if he didn't, would we have gotten him with pick #16? Has he had any knee problems? That would be the biggest concern.

Why did you leave off 2006? Played in 3 of 13 games? or something close to that?

My point is that the "injury" bug has been REPETITIVE. I actually like the guy, and have always believed you can never have too many linemen. But trying to characterize this pick as less of a "risk" than it is, is simply silly.

[RashanGary]

biceps is sort of a freak thing. Nice perspective HW. I do think it's an injury risk but I think that is the only reason we got him to begin with so like Minny; I think I'll take it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Why did you leave off 2006?

Possibly because everybody knows that he was injured last year. He played 24 of 26 games the previous two years before that.

[BooHoo]

Why pick an injury guy??????

[HarveyWallbangers]

Why pick an injury guy??????

Risk/reward. If the guy truly has top 10 talent, somebody is going to draft him at some point. It's up to a team to determine where the spot to risk taking him is. The one thing I've told myself is that everybody says this draft is really deep at WR and S--possibly the only 2 positions. Maybe Thompson felt he can get good prospects later at those positions. The RBs after Peterson and Lynch are all grouped together, so it wasn't an option.

[RashanGary]

Why pick an injury guy??????

I've heard Thompson say he takes into account risk reward when he drafts a player. Things like character and injury are in risk and things like love for football, size, speed, production, football skill are in the reward....


I'm just taking an educated guess based on what Thompson says he'll do:

I think he took into account all things with the players in the draft and even with the injury risk; he felt Harrell was the best guy to take with that pick.

[RashanGary]

Beat me to it HW :)

[BooHoo]

I do not like the pick. Too much risk.

[Brohm]

Looking around a bit, Olsen has had injury problems in the past as well. Noone is down on him about that. Broken wrist, shoulder injury, concussion.

Guess timing is everything.

[retailguy]

Looking around a bit, Olsen has had injury problems in the past as well. Noone is down on him about that. Broken wrist, shoulder injury, concussion.

Guess timing is everything.


Not necessarily. Olsen is now going to play for the bears. His injury history just became a good thing. :P

Plus, TE is a position of need on the Packers, at least in a lot of peoples minds.

Why take a guy with an injury history at a position that is fairly well stocked? That being said, 16 was too high to seriously consider Olsen. I'm not in the slightest bit upset that we went in a different direction.

Yes, I understand about the run defense, but the guy has to be healthy to be on the field. :P

[HarveyWallbangers]

If he doesn't get injured, then we don't get him. We'll see how it goes. Like the Collins and Jennings picks, if it works out, people won't say anything. If it doesn't, Thompson will get skewered. Because of the talent he has (and again, this is from a guy who liked Harrell better than most projections), I can't complain. Our DL is solid, but if you get a chance to get a stud DL, you do it. Don't know if he'll be a stud, but there's even people that have said he's a top 10 pick if he doesn't get injured that I have hope that he'll really help the defense out. Now, go to work. There's still 8 picks left to be made, and historically this team has made it's best picks in later rounds (Thompson included).

[LL2]

If you go over to fox sports web site and read their analysis of the pick it says TT had everybody fooled. TT is the ultimate poker player as he never shows his hand. Hopefully Harrel can get some great conditioning in so injuries become less of a concern. With Jenkins/ Pickett/ Harrell/Kampan hopefully they will become a force and collapse the pocket all game long. This will allow Hawk and Barnett to make some great plays too. We can have a top 5 defense with this group.

[wist43]

The only way this pick can be justified is if Harrell is a pro-bowl calibur player.

The Packers already have 2 above average DT's in Pickett and Williams; Jolly has a lot of upside; and, Cole is at least average, i.e. he's a decent player.

Even if Harrell is good, how does he appreciably make you better??? If Harrell is good and replaces Cole on the roster, all TT has accomplished with this pick, is to now have 4 good DT's, as opposed to 3 good DT's and a pretty good DT (Cole).

There has been talk that Harrell could have been a top 10 IF he had been healthy - he's going to have to play like a top 10 pick; and, of course, he's going to have to stay healthy to justify using a first round pick on him.

[Partial]

Yes, now what do we do with Corey Williams? I like the pick I guess, but I question why?

[RashanGary]

Williams 60% / Harrell 40%
Pickett 60% / Harrell 20 %

Williams, Harrell and Pickett can all play 2/3's of the snaps. You don't have do do anything with Williams unless you like crappy DT's on the field for half of the game.

It's a unit. It's not like 2 starters is enough.

[RashanGary]

Cole is not an OK palyer. He does nothing.

[BallHawk]

Cole is not an OK palyer. He does nothing.

He's "a guy." He doesn't hurt you, but he doesn't help you either. Kinda like Fergy....

[RashanGary]

I don't know if I've ever seen Cole make a play. What did he have? 3 tackles and 0 sacks?

If Harrell is a stud and he replaces Coles minutes it's a GREAT pick and they are considerably better. I disagree completely Wist.

[Partial]

Williams 60% / Harrell 40%
Pickett 60% / Harrell 20 %

Williams, Harrell and Pickett can all play 2/3's of the snaps. You don't have do do anything with Williams unless you like crappy DT's on the field for half of the game.

It's a unit. It's not like 2 starters is enough.

For this year, sure. What about after this year, though. Do you pay 3 DT's 4+ mil a year? Seems like a lot. Williams is probably gone. That, or Pickett is gone.

[RashanGary]

I just think with DT's you need 3 starters. They all play starter minutes so yeah, if you have 3 starters then you pay all 3 like starters if they are impacting the game at a rate taht is worthy.

[Partial]

I just think with DT's you need 3 starters. They all play starter minutes so yeah, if you have 3 starters then you pay all 3 like starters if they are impacting the game at a rate taht is worthy.

I agree, but idley you try to develop one at an affordable, rookie 3rd round+ rate, rather than as a solid starter salary.

[Partial]

trade down TT - wrong thread :lol:

[RashanGary]

We'll deal with it as it comes. I'd love to have a situation where we always have impact from teh DT positoin no matter who is on the field. That would go a logn way toward making our defense special.

[RashanGary]

This is exactly why I believe in being wise iwth your money. IF you can have impact defensive players that make a difference and you keep locking them up for reasonable deals then you can afford to have a true impact line. I have no problem with spending for impact. I have a problem with spending on average FA's who won't make a difference.

Stud DT's are welcome even if we had 4 of them and paid them all like starters. Tehy would torture opponents and give us a great shot at winning any game.

[the_idle_threat]

Harrell ... interesting. Good call by Wist that TT would go defense with a guy nobody was expecting ...

I'm ambivalent about the pick.

On one hand, I like the idea of a stud defensive tackle to pair with Pickett. I don't think Corey Williams is much better than "just a guy." If Harrell and Pickett stuff the middle, with Kampman and Jenkins being excellent run-stopping ends and fast guys like Barnett and Hawk covering the edge, how will teams run against our defense?

On the other hand, I don't like injury-prone players. Reinjury is never a matter of if with them, but a matter of when. This is why I didn't want Adrian Peterson, despite his obvious talent.

Harrell has been injured repeatedly with "freak" injuries, which is the hallmark of an injury-prone player. See also: Najeh Davenpoop. I've mentioned before that I believe some people are just built out of "softer" material than others, and they break easily. You see it around the league in many different sports.

My expectation for Harrell is that he should have a Kris Jenkins or Joe Johnson-like career---going to a Pro Bowl or two because of his talent, but spending a lot of time in the training room.

Still better than Meachem or Olsen though. I absolutely dreaded the possibility of hearing either of those names called at 16. I've mentioned before that both are on my "biggest bust risk" list.

[RashanGary]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/draft;_ylt=Aus0JE3R0cFEdGW9uc24a_45nYcB?round=1&dl=nfl

Check Harrell out on vid. He looks dominate. Just click on the little camera by the player you want to see.

[Patler]

The only way this pick can be justified is if Harrell is a pro-bowl calibur player.
.....
Even if Harrell is good, how does he appreciably make you better??? If Harrell is good and replaces Cole on the roster, all TT has accomplished with this pick, is to now have 4 good DT's, as opposed to 3 good DT's and a pretty good DT (Cole).

There has been talk that Harrell could have been a top 10 IF he had been healthy - he's going to have to play like a top 10 pick; and, of course, he's going to have to stay healthy to justify using a first round pick on him.

That's true only if you believe in drafting for need.

[Guiness]

What's with the INT's by this guy! Good anticipation. When does a DT ever get an interception??? Nice.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Like partial, I think, said: if this guy turns into John Henderson, everybody will be happy. Why bitch now--since we don't have a clue how good this player will be. There will be plenty of time to bitch if he turns into a bust.

[Iron Mike]

I wonder how many $ it would take to get him to change his last name to "Credible?" :P

[wist43]

The only way this pick can be justified is if Harrell is a pro-bowl calibur player.
.....
Even if Harrell is good, how does he appreciably make you better??? If Harrell is good and replaces Cole on the roster, all TT has accomplished with this pick, is to now have 4 good DT's, as opposed to 3 good DT's and a pretty good DT (Cole).

There has been talk that Harrell could have been a top 10 IF he had been healthy - he's going to have to play like a top 10 pick; and, of course, he's going to have to stay healthy to justify using a first round pick on him.

That's true only if you believe in drafting for need.

I believe that more often than not, there is usually a comparable player at a position of need... it's just a matter of which one.

Use Meachem as an example - reports were that the Packers were considering him at 16 - and, suppose he goes on to become a pro bowl calibur WR; suppose also that Harrell goes on to become a pro bowler as well.

So, assuming the same level success, taking Meachem you now have two areas of strength, WR and DT; whereas, taking Harrell you still have a weakness at WR, and are only marginally better at DT b/c you were pretty good there to begin with.

It's TT's job to find the comparable player, and build the team.

Next year, Driver is a year older, Jones isn't much help, Jennings is ok, KRob implodes... what happens if we come to our first round pick, and again, the #1 rated player on TT's board is a DT???

By TT's rigid parameters, he has to - has no choice - he has to take the DT... Is that going to appreciably improve the team??? Of course not - you're already solid at DT.

Like I said, it's TT's job to find that comparable player at the position of need - if the grades are far too disparate, then yeah, stick to your board; but, if you've got Justin Harrell rated at 8.02, and Robert Meachem at 7.99, and you have no need at DT, and a gaping hole at WR - you have to take Meachem.

The draft is such a crap shoot... there's no guarentee Harrell is going to turn out either.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't like your comparison. I'd take a Pro Bowl DT over a Pro Bowl WR any day--whether I had decent DTs already or not.

You have to be happy about the Moss trade falling through?

[wist43]

I don't like your comparison. I'd take a Pro Bowl DT over a Pro Bowl WR any day--whether I had decent DTs already or not.

You have to be happy about the Moss trade falling through?

Yes, glad to see Moss go elsewhere...

BTW, I too would always take a pro bowl DT over a pro bowl WR... find another position to make the comparison then - you know what I mean.

Waitin for the Packs 4th round pick - then off to play nine.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hit 'em hard and straight.

[Scott Campbell]

Next year, Driver is a year older, Jones isn't much help, Jennings is ok, KRob implodes... what happens if we come to our first round pick, and again,


He can always find a stopgap during cut downs. Or sign a free agent (cough, cough).